ABOLITION OF PARATE EXECUTIE AS A RESULT OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING NUMBER 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Antonius Nicholas Budi

doi:10.25216/jhp.9.2.2020.255-274

ABOLITION OF PARATE EXECUTIE AS A RESULT OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING NUMBER 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Antonius Nicholas Budi^(1*)

(1) Brawijaya University
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Constitutional Court Ruling Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 have caused changes to the method of execution in fiduciary security rights, by introducing, through the Court Ruling’s third judgement, either voluntary or legal effort requirement to the acknowledgement of breach of contract in the exercise of parate executie. This is due to the Court having erred in considering parate executie as connected to executoriale titel. This paper first aims to delineate parate executie as a distinct method of foreclosure from executoriale titel using a conceptual approach. By further using this approach, this paper shows that the effect on foreclosure in fiduciary right is that executoriale titel is unaffected while foreclosure in parate executie is effectively abolished. However, law practitioners should still be able to use a subpoena to notify creditors as to the breach of contract to fulfill legal effort requirements. Second, this paper discusses whether the Constitutional Court Ruling impairs exercise of parate executie in other security rights by comparing it to Supreme Court Ruling Number 3210/K/Pdt/1984, dated 30 January 1986, which impairs the exercise of parate executie in Mortgage, before being remedied by implementing regulation of the Auctioneer Office. Using that approach, the ruling is can be shown to have a chilling effect on the exercise of parate executie. The article ends with the suggestion that further guidance is needed in the form of implementing regulation, both by the Supreme Court or the Auctioneer Office.

Keywords

Parate executie; Executoriale titel; Fiduciary Security Rights; Security Right; Foreclosure

Full Text:

ENGLISH

References

Anggoro, Teddy, “Parate Eksekusi: Hak Kreditur, Yang Menderogasi Hukum Formil (Suatu Pemahaman Dasar Dan Mendalam)”, Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, vol. 37, no. 4 (December 2007), pp. 535–565.

Assegaf, Ahmad Fikri, and Elijana Tanzah, Penjelasan Hukum Tentang Grosse Akte, Jakarta: Nasional Legal Reform Program, 2011.

Badan Peradilan Umum Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia, Pedoman Eksekusi Pada Pengadilan Negeri, 2019th ed., Jakarta, 2019.

Bustanuddin, “Analisis Fungsi Penjelasan Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia”, Jurnal Ilmu Hukum INOVATIF, vol. 6, no. 7 (2013): pp. 79–90.

Cardima, Aska, and Hadyan Iman Prasetya, “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019: Apa Implikasinya Bagi Proses Bisnis Lelang?”, KPKNL Bekasi, 22 Januari 2020, https://www.djkn.kemenkeu.go.id/kpknl-bekasi/baca-artikel/ 12953/PUTUSAN-MAHKAMAH-KONSTITUSI-NOMOR-18PUU-XVII2019-APA-IMPLIKASINYA-BAGI-PROSES-BISNIS-LELANG.html, accessed 19 March 2020.

Dirix, Eric, “Remedies of Secured Creditors Outside Insolvency”, in The Future of Secured Credit in Europe, ed. by Eidenmülle, Horst, and Eva-Maria Kieninger, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Harahap, Panusunan, “Eksekutabilitas Putusan Arbitrase oleh Lembaga Peradilan”, Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, vol. 7, no. 1 (2018), pp. 127-150.

Huzaini, Moh. Dani Pratama, “Advokat Ini Bicara Soal Dampak Putusan MK Tentang Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia”, Hukumonline.Com, 17 Januari 2020, https://www.hukumonline .com/berita/baca/lt5e210756c2b40/advokat-ini-bicara-soal-dampak-putusan-mk-tentang-eksekusi-jaminan-fidusia/, accessed April 15, 2020.

Jamilus, “Persoalan Dalam Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Sertifikat Dan Hak Tanggungan”, Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, vol. 17, no. 2 (2017), pp. 283-299.

Maengkom, Chris Rivaldo, “Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia Yang Berlaku Di Indonesia Sebagai Lembaga Jaminan Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999”, Lex Privatum, vol. 4, no. 1 (2016), pp. 74–82.

Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. Pedoman Teknis Administrasi Dan Teknis Peradilan Perdata Umum. 2007th ed., Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia ,2008.

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019, 6 January 2020.

Panjaitan, Rose, “Pengaturan Dan Pelaksanaan Parate Eksekusi Di Luar Hukum Acara Perdata”, Notaire, vol. 1, no. 1 (July 2018), pp. 135–152.

Paparang, Fatmah, “Standarisasi Prosedur Pendaftaran Fidusia Dalam Praktek Perbankan.” Jurnal Lex Privatum, vol. 4, no. 7 (2016).

Poesoko, Herowati, Dinamika Hukum Parate executie Obyek Hak Tanggungan, Yogyakarta: Aswaja Pressindo, 2013.

Santoso, Handoko Eko, “Hapusnya Kekuatan Eksekutorial Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia”, Hukumclick, 10 January 2020, https://hukumclick.wordpress.com/2020/01/10/hapusnya-kekuatan-eksekutorial-sertifikat-jaminan-fidusia, accessed May 11, 2020.

Saraswati, Ananda Fitki Ayu, “Dilematis Eksekusi Hak Tanggungan Melalui Parate executie Dan Eksekusi Melalui Grosse Akta”, Jurnal Repertorium, vol. 2, no. 2 (2015), pp. 51–59.

Satrio, J., Hukum Jaminan, Hak Jaminan Kebendaan Fidusia, Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2005.

Satrio, J., Parate Eksekusi Sebagai Sarana Menghadapi Kredit Macet, Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 1993.

Sofwan, Sri Soedewi Masjchun, Hukum Perdata: Hak Jaminan Atas Tanah, Cetakan V, Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2001.

Suyatno, H. R. M. Anton, “Perlawanan Eksekusi Obyek Jaminan Hak Tanggungan Berdasarkan Titel Eksekutorial”, Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, vol. 3, no. 1 (March 2014), pp. 1-10.

Tan, Henny Tanuwidjaja, “Parate Eksekusi Hak Tanggungan Kontra Fiat Pengadilan”, Refleksi Hukum, vol. 10, no. 1 (2016), pp. 99-109.

Usman, Rachmadi, Hukum Jaminan Keperdataan, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2016.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/jhp.9.2.2020.255-274